• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Closest thing to an Alpha..... (2 Viewers)

Poor Frank. His thread has degenerated into the typical "what is an alpha" semantics clusterF. Although I guess it's his fault for initiating the thread with that term in the title.
 
Ugh. It seems these "what is an alpha?" threads never manage to keep distinct what alpha means (which, to my anthropological way of thinking, is equivalent to how the word is used within the linguistic community in question) versus what folks want it to mean. Within any community, there are differences in opinion, but in the aggregate it seems that alpha has to do with brand status, not performance itself, not price itself. We can point to many bins that are very expensive and with high performance that are nevertheless not alphas simply because they aren't recognized as such (e.g. the LV bin in my previous post, top past or present models from Nikon, Brunton, Steiner, Pentax, Bushnell, Swift, Celestron, Minox, Meopta. In the USA at least, Bausch & Lomb arguably once had alpha status). Achieving alpha status is like winning a popularity contest--one's personality, physical beauty, and pedigree are all part of the explanation for how the win is achieved, but none of them constitute what it means to be most popular--because it is about prestige, and it comes from (or is "granted by") the community in aggregate.

Much debate centers on whether Nikon is an alpha. The fact that debate exists establishes that the community has not come to consensus on that question, so I'd say it isn't there yet. There is no debate as to the status of Swarovski, Zeiss, or Leica. What's Nikon's problem? I gave an explanation in the older thread on that topic http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=235008 . I'm sure it is a combination of factors--the fact that the brand is Japanese, the use of the "Nikon" brand on products at all price points, its marketing that emphasizes utility over luxury (not true, incidentally, of the fashion-oriented marketing of its compact cameras, which sell well despite mediocre design/performance), the fact that its sport optics are generally excellent yet conservative and often copycat (though often further improved/refined) designs. Rarely if ever has it been a design leader in binos or scopes. Which companies first introduced into contemporary consumer product lines such technologies as roof prisms, phase coatings, dielectric prism coatings, pull-up eyecups, anti-scratch and hydrophobic/lipophobic lens coatings, center control diopter, wide-angle zoom scope eyepieces? The euro brands haven't always been quick to embrace currently admired technologies, most notably field flatteners and ED glass in bins, but they are more often than not the leaders in utilizing them, even if when they weren't the inventors or the very first. Nikon often drags its feet. I don't think that it is possible to be recognized as an alpha model without coming from an alpha brand (the latter is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the former).

Alpha status is obtained through a complex history of developing a reputation by embracing the pursuit of performance beyond reason (i.e. making products with performance so superb that it is rarely justifiable on practical grounds), _AND_ by designing/embellishing/marketing their products as the luxury items that they are, with prices to match the cost of their production and the status the brand hopes to achieve or maintain. It doesn't hurt the status of Leica bins that their cameras are even less justifiable on practical grounds than their bins, and that those cameras are often sold with ostrich leather and other bling, and it doesn't hurt Swarovski's image that they also make crystal--those things help drive home the fact that these are makers of luxury goods.

--AP
 
Lee, I once had the most unpleasant cause to spend 24hrs in a country hospital with I think what must have been the 2nd worst case of food-poisoning known to mankind (the 1st place soul didn't make it :gn:) .......

That *mess* reminded me of Nikon's strategic market placement .....

Chosun :gh:

CJ

Now you come to mention it, I was once brought low by a dose of Campylobacter, and looking back (I did that many times during the episode) there were hints of a Nikon-like 'cover' the whole market about it.

Moving swiftly on........:eek!:

Lee
 
...Nikon was also the first to use Flat Field technology in their binoculars, beginning with the SEs in 1995 and then later in their LX/HG series which also were Alpha's in their time. The way the Swaro Fanboys brag about their Swarovisons you would think the flat field was a Swarovski innovation. It's old technology.

Among the brands Nikon, Zeiss, Swarovski, and Leica, you are right that Nikon was first (at least in contemporary product lines--I don't know the deeper history), and that it is an old technology, but its routine use actually goes way back before the SE and the LX/HG. Both Fujinon and Nikon, and probably others as well, have long used it in their best porros (e.g. Nikon 7x50 ProStar), and Nikon used it in their first premium birding roof, the Nikon 8x40 Classic Eagle.

--AP
 
Performance is not the definitive element.
Rather, the sole consistent factor, is cost. It seems the perception of binoculars complies with Veblen's theories in Theory of the Leisure Class. That is not to say they do not have excellent build quality and optics.

This I understand, though from the hints I get it's possible cost also isnt a factor entirely, they must be made by a company that doesnt make optics that are lower priced (not cheap, or even inexpensive, but nothing of a grade to be considered good workman like optics) So if that is the case, Zeiss may be falling from the alpha class since they now market Terras.
 
Last edited:
An 'Alpha' is neither about luxury goods, status, or cost.

It is about performance.

An 'Alpha' brand is established through a history of leading performance. Such performance costs - not only just in terms of material and production costs, but in the necessary ongoing R&D to remain at the front of the game (this is similar to the point Alexis made, although I am in diametric disagreement to the premise it stems from). Such a 'hit' (long-term investment) on the ROI is reflected in higher selling prices IF there are no 'substitute' products which meet the performance criteria available.

Nikon certainly makes 'Alpha' products, but it's strategic market positioning *mess* dilutes them as an 'Alpha Brand'.

This is the very reason that Toyota created the Lexus brand, why Honda tried to do the same, and BMW acquired 'Mini'. The only automotive companys with any success at 'brand stretching' under the same name is Mercedes Benz, largely due to technology trickle down, and to a lesser extent Audi (although it does have the VW group family to realise platform sharing cost structure advantages). They have seen lower segments subject to massive erosion by company's such as Hyundai playing the hyper-competitive market 'value' card (of course 'styling' as one of their 'value engineering' peaks has been a great business decision ....). Zeiss will have to tread very carefully with it's three tier approach in order not to dilute it's 'Alphaness' ......

So in binoworld the performance of the view is :king:
Frank's original question then becomes - what percentage, or what point do lesser offerings get you 'close' .....

Since, lower performance levels do not drop uniformly from 'Alpha-land' (themselves subject to 'different' 'winning formulas'), then it also introduces individual preference into the equation.



Chosun :gh:
 
Good points, Alexis....

Nikon is like Seiko: Seiko produces some of the best, most innovative mechanical watches ever made (the Spring Drives and Grand Seikos), but is often perceived (in the US at least) as a cheap brand because they market a wide range of products across the entire market spectrum (some Spring Drives will set you back more than a Rolex, but you can still get a Seiko on sale at Macy's for under $100). Interestingly, in the segment of the scientific community that depends on high-end optical microscopes ($30-75K), no one doubts Nikon's status. In fact, they are generally understood to be superior to Leica scopes (the top three are Zeiss, Nikon and Olympus).

Swarovskis are great, but they are also consciously created and marketed as "status" binoculars.
 
Last edited:
Nikon is like Seiko: Seiko produces some of the best, most innovative mechanical watches ever made (the Spring Drives and Grand Seikos), but is often perceived (in the US at least) as a cheap brand ..............................

......... Interestingly, in the segment of the scientific community that depends on high-end optical microscopes ($30-75K), no one doubts Nikon's status.

Swarovskis are great, but they are also consciously created and marketed as "status" binoculars.

Bingo! You got it!

Status: That is Swarovski's main (probably it's single) innovation in the binocular market. Marketing "status" binoculars.

Look at this ad from Swarovski AG:

http://www.swarovski.com/Web_US/en/...04000660.200&gclid=CJzbyLnQuLkCFYqZ4AodExEADQ

Swarovski markets "status"!

Lots of men "wear" their Swarovskis like a Repp tie!:king:

http://www.gilt.com/giltmanual/2011/06/repp-tie/

They do look good on a stuffed shirt though!;)

Bob
 
Last edited:
Bingo! You got it!

Status: That is Swarovski's main (probably it's single) innovation in the binocular market. Marketing "status" binoculars.

Look at this ad from Swarovski AG:

http://www.swarovski.com/Web_US/en/...04000660.200&gclid=CJzbyLnQuLkCFYqZ4AodExEADQ

Swarovski markets "status"!

Lots of men "wear" their Swarovskis like a Repp tie!:king:

http://www.gilt.com/giltmanual/2011/06/repp-tie/

They do look good on a stuffed shirt though!;)

Bob

Bob,

You missed out the holly grail - they have a Royal Warrant appointment to Queen Elizabeth ll.

Stan
 
This is just another Swarovski envy thread.

PS
Every time Swarovski is mocked their prestige rises.
 
Last edited:
An 'Alpha' is neither about luxury goods, status, or cost.

It is about performance.





Chosun :gh:

My feeling is that , with certain brands, all of the above are connected (whether the manufacturer likes it or not).
Vortex makes an elite or alpha bin in their Razor, but the brand reflects neither luxury nor status since they make so many affordable models. However, with the big three (L,S,Z), cost, performance, status and even luxury do immediately come to mind (from my POV). 'Luxury' is another relative word. For those on a limited budget any bin past even $500 could be considered a luxury item. If a maker does not offer even one affordable model in their catalog then that brand as a whole is unattainable to many and could be seen as a luxury/staus brand.
 
Last edited:
.... Status: That is Swarovski's main (probably it's single) innovation in the binocular market. Marketing "status" binoculars.

Look at this ad from Swarovski AG:

http://www.swarovski.com/Web_US/en/...04000660.200&gclid=CJzbyLnQuLkCFYqZ4AodExEADQ

Swarovski markets "status"! .....

Bob - how about this ?? :cat: http://www.swarovski.com/Web_US/en/91222/promotion/Hello_Kitty.html?na_os=left

Is it also a measure of status ? :eek!:

I imagine it's just about de rigueur for 14 year old Japanese schoolgirls !! 3:)

Status indeed ...... *smacks head, roll eyes smilie*




Chosun :gh:
 
"Alpha" has different connotations for different people; I believe that FrankD's question referred to alpha quality such as the SV EL, HT, Ultravid, and EDG. Some people may think it only refers to optical performance and some (such as myself) are interested in both optics and build/overall performance. Others use it in terms of status/price.

It is kind of a shame that a potentially good thread was derailed by lame semantics when the overall intent of this thread was relatively simple, particularly when considering most of FrankD's other posts.
 
This is just another Swarovski envy thread.

.

I don't see it this way at all. I own a swaro and think their bins are amazing, but they are not above criticism. And, Swaro does make luxury items...that's their business in a nutshell...nothing wrong with this.
 
"

It is kind of a shame that a potentially good thread was derailed by lame semantics when the overall intent of this thread was relatively simple, particularly when considering most of FrankD's other posts.

You're right. Even though I do find the discussion of the term 'alpha' somewhat interesting, we still went off topic.

So...lets get back on track...

So far we have close/equal to alpha optical quality for under 1k in the following nominations:

Nikon SE
Nikon EII
Nikon Premier (roof)
Vortex Viper HD
Leupold GR HD
Swaro Habicht (does this count?)

What else? I think there was a Swift model thrown in at some point.
 
Last edited:
"Alpha" has different connotations for different people; I believe that FrankD's question referred to alpha quality such as the SV EL, HT, Ultravid, and EDG. Some people may think it only refers to optical performance and some (such as myself) are interested in both optics and build/overall performance. Others use it in terms of status/price.

It is kind of a shame that a potentially good thread was derailed by lame semantics when the overall intent of this thread was relatively simple, particularly when considering most of FrankD's other posts.

I don't think the thread has been derailed by this.

Part of owning an alpha has clearly been, especially here on Bird Forum, about status. So I do not think it is off topic at all. A cursory review of the threads about "Alpha" binoculars here will support that.

It has been impossible to talk about the merits of the the top rated binoculars manufactured by the "Big Four" without the matter of "status" very often cropping up in their discussions. Sometimes legitimately but too often in a superior, aristocratic manner. As a result it is often lampooned. This is, after all, a bourgeois internet website and that will happen.

Bob
 
Obviously there is not going to be any set definition, but from FrankD's original post as well as his other posts on this and other optics forums, it seems fairly clear that he is less concerned with "prestige" or "status" than with performance, and I so I took his mention of "alpha" to mean "highest quality" binoculars.

EDIT: Annabeth, I believe the Swift Audubon Porro ED 8.5x44, were the Swifts mentioned. Those are a pair I have a lot of interest and am actually wondering how closely they compare to the top performers.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top